Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'modify' without explaining whether the operation overwrites the entire self-assessment, whether it is idempotent, or if there are side effects. This is minimal behavioral information.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, essentially restating the tool name in Chinese. While concise, it is under-specified and fails to provide any meaningful information beyond the name, making it closer to a tautology than an effective description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one string parameter, no output schema), the description still lacks essential context such as usage scenarios, behavior details, or interactions with other resume components. It does not adequately explain when or how to use the tool in a real workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with the parameter 'selfAssess' described as '自我评价内容'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '修改自我评价' clearly states the action (modify) and the resource (self-assessment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like modify-edu-exp and modify-work-exp by targeting a unique resume section, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or situations where this tool should be preferred over sibling modify tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.